Re: Relocating Web services
"ias" <[email protected]> Fri, 3 May 2002 09:12:15 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <000c01c1f2ac$a3038c60$44098642@zzz> |
how do i get off this mailing list. i thought i already unsubscribed but since i got this i guess i did something wrong. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Ayers" <[email protected]> To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <[email protected]>; "Mark Baker" <[email protected]> Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <[email protected]>; "Www-Talk@W3. Org" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 6:34 AM Subject: RE: Relocating Web services > >REST is a wonderful thing. It's an incredibly powerful disruptive > >technology. It has changed the way people search for and obtain information > >and entertainment. It's changing the way people compose information. It's > >having a huge impact on every form of publishing industry (news, magazines, > >books, music, movies, etc.) But that doesn't mean that it should supplant > >all other forms of distributed computing -- not even all forms of Web-based > >communications. > > Ok, so far I have been able to follow the terminology and most of the > arguments - depending on who you talk to the web is either just 1. http+html > or 2. http+html+loads of other internet technologies. Web services may or > may not fit with web 1 or 2. I personally don't see a problem with calling > SOAP-based systems Web Services, whatever protocols are used - ok, perhaps > Internet Services or even XML Services might have been better, but I don't > see this as a significant issue. > > What I do find strange though is talking about REST in such a way though - > surely this describes an architecture that is how Fielding et al suggest the > web *should* work. In the real world I'd be a little surprised and not > entirely comfortable with retrofitting a blueprint on an existing building, > but just considered in terms of guidelines for extensions to the building > then I could see the merit. Reluctantly going further, ok, if the plumbing > breaks than you can replace the old system with a system based on the new > design. But talking of the new blueprint, how the building would be in an > ideal world, as if it *is* the building would strike me as most bizarre. I > have the same reaction to the statement above. > > Cheers, > Danny. > > > --- > Danny Ayers > <stuff> http://www.isacat.net </stuff> > >